Baptism (of water) imprints upon a soul an eternal mark which cannot be ever erased. It is an indelible mark precisely because is eternal and one cannot lose it even by committing the sin of Apostasy (or heresy) which causes a total loss of Sanctifying Grace. It is because of this indelible mark that Baptism cannot be ever repeated, even in Apostates reverting to the Faith, as the Holy Roman Church has taught through Her Infallible Magisterium:

Among these sacraments there are three, Baptism ... which imprint an indelible sign on the soul, that is, a certain character distinctive from the others. Hence they should not be repeated in the same person.(Denz.695)

If anyone says that in... Baptism... there is not imprinted on the soul a sign, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible mark, on account of which it cannot be repeated: let him be anathema. (Denz. 852)

If anyone shall say that Baptism truly and rightly administered must be repeated for him who has denied the faith of Christ among infidels, when he is converted : let him be anathema.(Denz. 867)

The matter is settled.

Cantarella, the character of Baptism, though, is much more than simply an unrepeatability marker.  It ontologically transforms the soul into an image of Our Lord, not unlike Holy Orders but to a lesser extent (Vatican II had this quite right), and into a member of the Body of Christ.  It's only because the Father recognizes His Son in us that He treats us like adopted children (as St. Paul describes it) and we can enter INSIDE the life of the Holy Trinity.  According to the Church Fathers, this transformation makes us like "gods" as it were.  See, in our natural capacity, we human beings lack the faculties or capabilities to see God SUPERnaturally, to see Him as He is and therefore to enter into the life of the Holy Trinity.  But this character bestows upon our nature this missing supernatural faculty.  Just as we have natural faculties of sight, hearing, and reason, this gives us the supernatural faculties so that we are capable of the beatific vision ... it's like a new supernatural sense.  That's why I have an extremely difficult time with BoD.  I would rather that the BoD theorists had asserted that those saved by BoD also received this character somehow.  But that doesn't make any sense either.  Some of the Church Fathers speculated that God even raised the OT just momentarily from the dead in order to have them baptized.  THAT'S how indispensible they considered the Sacrament of Confession and the SEAL (character) that it imparts.  But due to BoDism this character has been grossly underemphasized.

Quote from: Stubborn

I only place the limits that the Church places, which means once a person has reached the age of reason and has partaken in at least the sacraments of penance and the Holy Eucharist(...)
 

I don't believe this to be the case, as we can deduce from the requirements for Salvation.

Baptism alone suffices to make one a member (initially and necessarily, but not sufficiently as for permanence), since:

1)EENS
2)A person, having only received the Sacrament of Baptism, and holding the true Faith may be saved
3)"   "   "   "   "   "   "   "   "  is a member of the Church

Well, yes, I agree with your syllogism, but the reality is that we're pretty safe when we say that nobody is going to keep the faith if they've never even made their first confession / communion. It is one of the main reasons Pope St. Pius X lowered the "age of reason" to 7 years old - and made frequent communion the rule.

Well, yes, I agree with your syllogism, but the reality is that we're pretty safe when we say that nobody is going to keep the faith if they've never even made their first confession / communion. It is one of the main reasons Pope St. Pius X lowered the "age of reason" to 7 years old - and made frequent communion the rule.

Yes they would be exceptional cases.
Still, membership does not require those two Sacraments you mentioned.

In fact, I would say, all validly baptised people, until they deviate from the Faith, are members.

The same syllogism can be applied to baptised infants:


1)EENS
2)baptised infants are saved 100%
3)baptised infants are (already) members


Which is why I am puzzled as to OCAC not leading directly to a completely deranged concepts of the Church including everyone validly baptised.
It is apparently an inescapable consequence.

Or, you can add ulterior requirements and/or dropthe "Baptism" part altogether.

But then you end up with the actual Catholic understandment, as Faith does not leave any indelible mark, and it can be lost.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Desmond, I have given your question some thought myself over the years.  Why are merely internal heretics still members of the Church for St. Robert?  It's because he's very clear in emphasizing, as Trent was, against the Protestant heresies, that the Church is a VISIBLE SOCIETY on earth.  He would not say that an occult heretic is a non-member of the Church in the internal forum.  He would say that such a one remains a member but a dead member (just like anyone who might be in a state of grave sin).  Only manifest heresy would render them non-members of the visible society.  That's my take on it.

I see.
However he himself did not have membership coincide with visible profession, as he taught of the "soul of the Church" dichotomy.


I don't see how there could be invisible members, who are only united in Faith to the Church, without actual partaking, as far as anyone understands, without having visible "members" who are only apparently united but are actually not (ie: secret heretics, schismatics, apostates).

I guess it's a primarily gnoseological and semantic problem.

We can, however, derive membership in the internal forum through the dogma of EENS and other infallible qualifiers as far as Salvation is concerned.

It pretty much shows membership coincides with Faith, with Baptism being an absolutely necessary prerequisite, or gateway, for it.

St. Robert laid out four requirements for membership ... if I recall correctly.  One was indeed visible profession of the faith (for adults obviously and supplied for those below the age of reason) and another was the reception of the Sacraments.  I believe that he articulated that soul of the Church dichotomy precisely in order to explain how catechumens who died before Baptism might be saved.  But even then he was clear to state that they received the Sacrament of Baptism in voto and not that they were saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.  When he listed these four criteria for membership, he excluded catechumens from membership in the Church on the grounds of their not having received the Sacraments.  But it almost appears as if he wasn't taking this explanation into account when he speculated that catechumens might be saved.  So it's hard to say without having a chance to talk to him directly.

Only formal heretics are considered non-members of the Church. This is because material heretics can be hidden as no one can enter other's internal forum. St. Bellarmine says that schismatics are outside the Church; but not because they do not have Faith nor Sacraments (which they do, according to Bellamine) but for this single reason: they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

That single reason suffices to place them outside the Church.

Quote from: St. Bellarmine, who is a member of the Church?

By reason of the third, are excluded schismatics, who have faith and the sacraments, but are not subject to the lawful pastor, and therefore they profess the Faith outside, and receive the Sacraments outside. However, all others are included, even if they be reprobate, sinful and wicked.  

"All others" refer to the validly Baptized.

Infidels, catechumens, ex-communicates are excluded from the Church. Not a mentioned word on heretics, though.

I take that back. Heretics are actually mentioned in Bellarmine's definition. They are also excluded and classified as infidels under the first category:

 By reason of the first part are excluded all infidels, as much those who have never been in the Church, like the Jews, Turks and Pagans; as those who have been and have fallen away, like heretics and apostates.

Infidels, catechumens, ex-communicates are excluded from the Church. Not a mentioned word on heretics, though.

I don't have the full passage, but these would fall away due to the profession of the true faith criterion.  When St. Robert speaks of the heretic pope, he clearly states that the reason he would cease to be pope is because due to the heresy he would cease to be a member of the Church and a non-member cannot be pope.  So to suggest that St. Robert might have believed that heretics are not excluded from membership in the Church is completely wrong.  You're taking this line entirely out of context.

Quote from: Bellarmine

 By reason of the first part are excluded all infidels, as much those who have never been in the Church, like the Jews, Turks and Pagans; as those who have been and have fallen away, like heretics and apostates.

Sorry.  I responded to your earlier post before reading this.  No, it's quite clear that St. Robert Bellarmine excludes heretics from membership in the Church.  (...)

As I said his further (and maybe later?) additional requirement of the heresy being manifest  makes no real sense though.

If, as it seems, the reason "heretics" and "apostates" "fall away" is deviation from the Faith, which regards the internal forum, and becomes explicit in the external forum only due to their willing choice, and that alone, it should happen regardless.


Much the same as people who do not externally profess the Faith, for whatever reason, yet believe it internally truly and honestly, are still member of the Church.

Unless feigning devotion is the same as the real thing.


His reasoning can be shown to be false via indirect deduction.

If membership did coincide with profession, and not actual genuine belief (holding actual Faith):

 it would require heresy, and therefore sin, being dependent on accidental(and aleatory) third party determination, which we know to be false:

sin is regardless of any external perception, past the perpetrator's in some cases.

In fact, it would render latae sententiae excommunication pointless, along with anathemas, which we know it is not the case.




Additionally, it could also be demonstrated using the following reasoning:

1)"...excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent."

2)hidden heretics are under ipso facto excommunication due to their heresy(ies)


3)hidden heretics are not members of the Church (until they repent)


Cantarella: I take it you don't adhere to OCAC then. Good.